Out of the lane? (Video)

[David Emerling]

Watch this play: Top Plays - April 24, 2012 - YouTube

Added by APG:

I'm curious in opinions whether you think this batter-runner should be called out for being out of the lane.

In my opinion, this runner purposely tried to get himself in the catcher's throwing lane for the expressed purpose of producing what happened. He goes from fair to foul territory. You can even see the batter-runner take a quick glance over his right shoulder, he sees where the catcher is, and then he veers in that direction. That's not very common. He probably figured, "I'm going to be out any way - why not complicate things and put it in the hands of the umpires and force them to make an uncommon interference call."

[john5396]

In a FED rules game, I would call the BR out for interference, he is clearly b oth feet outside the running lane and interfered with the throw.

For NCAA/OBR, (I dont work NCAA level), I understand the requirement is interference with the F3's ability to catch a quality throw. Since F2's throw is beyond F3's reach, this isnt interference. I dont think intent matters, requirement for interference being out of the running lane is position of the runner, and interference with the catch.

[Matt]

Good gamesmanship. Bad throw. No infraction.

[bob jenkins]

"Trying to interfere" is not "interfering" (although the definition of the latter varies by code).

Your play is not really any different from R1 trying to swat down F4's throw to F3 to turn a double play. If R1 doesn't touch the ball, you won't have INT.

[David Emerling]

I didn't mean to infer that the runner "trying" to interfere is, in itself, interference. I just found it interesting that the runner did make a concerted effort to position himself in the catcher's throwing lane. Personally, I think it's brilliant on the part of the runner. I'm sure he knows that he's going to be put out quite easily. Why not muddy the water in the process? If the umpire calls him out for interference - fine! He was going to be out anyway. If the umpire doesn't call him out for interference (as in this case) - even better!

[DG]

The catcher would have helped the case if he had plugged the runner in the back, instead of trying to throw around him.

In FED, RLI because they don't want quality throw to be a factor, and I suppose they don't want catchers plugging runners in the back. In NCAA, not a quality throw.

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by DG

The catcher would have helped the case if he had plugged the runner in the back, instead of trying to throw around him.

In FED, RLI because they don't want quality throw to be a factor, and I suppose they don't want catchers plugging runners in the back. In NCAA, not a quality throw.

Catchers (on well coached teams) are never taught to "plug a batter" because, if he misses the batter, you may end up with both a bad throw and no interference call.

Instead, if the catcher notices the runner is out of the lane and blocking his throw, he should target the first baseman, not the runner. That's not to say he should throw around the runner, rather, he should throw through the runner. Just pretend the runner is invisible. If it hits him - fine! You should get an interference call. If it misses him - fine! You were throwing to the first baseman anyway.

The mistake this catcher made, obviously, was trying to loft the ball over the runner - exactly what the runner was hoping for, I imagine.

So, the consensus seems to be: FED = interference. NCAA/OBR = nothing.

[Publius]

In Play 5 (the first one shown), if the PU had been F5, would you have OBS?

I would.

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by Publius

In Play 5 (the first one shown), if the PU had been F5, would you have OBS?

I would.

Hmmm - that's a tough one. He was certainly crowding her but it's not clear that it hindered her in any way. Not sure. I think she was complaining about the PU being in her way, though.

I'm pretty sure that the PU was out of position on that one. Certainly, he had somewhere to be that was better than where he was.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Publius

In Play 5 (the first one shown), if the PU had been F5, would you have OBS?

I would.

Me too.

[Tim C]

"Catchers (on well coached teams) are never taught to "plug a batter" . . . "

More standard drivel from this wanna be poster. Many top teams and professional teams teach "drill him between the numbers and then say to the PU 'see where he's on the ground -- not in the runners lane.'"

Tee

[DG]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

Catchers (on well coached teams) are never taught to "plug a batter" because, if he misses the batter, you may end up with both a bad throw and no interference call.

Instead, if the catcher notices the runner is out of the lane and blocking his throw, he should target the first baseman, not the runner. That's not to say he should throw around the runner, rather, he should throw through the runner. Just pretend the runner is invisible. If it hits him - fine! You should get an interference call. If it misses him - fine! You were throwing to the first baseman anyway.

The mistake this catcher made, obviously, was trying to loft the ball over the runner - exactly what the runner was hoping for, I imagine.

So, the consensus seems to be: FED = interference. NCAA/OBR = nothing.

I guess I was not a good coach, back in the day when I coached, because I told catchers to throw the ball directly to F3 and if there was no throwing lane to F3 because BR is out of the lane, do it anyway and the umpire would make the call. At least if they drilled the BR in the back the ball would not be in RF. Of course if you can get a throwing path to F3 take it.

Lobbing the ball around or over BR was not coached.